Talk:Roof knocking

I seperated the articles content about the conflict into its own section, it has been used before it and will probably be used again.

I also removed the following paragarph as it doesn't reflect the citation it uses, and therefore not notable

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, more than 1,300 Palestinians died and about 5,400 others were wounded during Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza, and more than 22,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed.[13] This is a rate of approximately 1 casualty per 3 buildings damaged or destroyed, for this IDF offensive where roof knocking was used.

The IDF, or even the news source this cites, do not claim that all the attacks during the conflict were a form of "Roof knocking". And in general, attributing all deaths, injuries, and damge to this one tactic is completely biased. --Nezek (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nezek!

1) Re the section title - section titles are useful when there are multiple sub-topics. That isn't the case here, so the section title that was just added should be deleted.

2) Re the death and destruction statistics - I've been having second thoughts about the relevance of that too, since it came to my attention today that a lawyer for the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said that only 37 houses were destroyed. So I'll give that some more thought and not restore it for now.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have RS that can confirm all attacks were a form of roof knocking, you should not restore it. I don't see how some new report is relevant. --Nezek (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What????? I only mentioned that new report because I felt it supported your deletion. My Gosh, you don't seem to know when someone is agreeing with you, or do you ;) ..... Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't say you agree with me, mate. You said you had your own reasons to believe it should been removed (relevance, lawyer). In fact, by not addressing my one and only point about it being baised, you implied you don't agree with it. --Nezek (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As of now, the article is the way you want it, with respect to the absence of the death and destruction statistics. Are we agreed that is the case for now?

Re bias, could you explain your point more? I'm interested. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're agreed (; --Nezek (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You've also reverted other edits that aren't related to this discussion. whats up with that? I'm restoring them, they are perfectly fine and even have relieable sources to confirm them. You don't revert peoples edits you don't agree with and then tell them to go ask you why you have a problem with it, on the talk page. If you have a problem with one of them you're welcome to use the talk page yourself. --Nezek (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nezek, that's normal procedure if an editor finds a new edit questionable with cause. See for example, WP:BRD.

You have to justify your changes on the talk page when a new edit of yours is reverted.

You removed a perfectly fine part with a reliable source that has been in the article for several weeks or more, and that needs to be justified. Also, you added material that was already in the article. I'm undoing your revert and please don't edit war, but conform to the Wikipedia practices that I mentioned above and justify your changes here. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. But, as I said, you need to explain specifically what you have a problem with, and why.

• - Based on the source. The says article the courts' ruling is that, in the case weapons are known to be in the building, it falls within the boundaries of international law. It's an important detail to add, considering the paragraph goes on, to show an argument that says the IDF has different motives for the strikings.

• - "and there have been hundreds of phone calls to families warning their house is about to be blown up" This is not a WP:NPOV, and does not conform to WP:TONE. The article makes it clear what a warning call is, theres no need to repeat it in this informal way. Also, it wasn't only families, but any household.

• - The facts should be noted in this sequence, as both sentences talk about cancelled attacks. For lack of better phrasing of the article, I briefly repeated it in the second paragraph.

• - I've checked the other sources. The source I used says three children, one wife. The others say 13 family members or so. I guess we can leave it at the number it was, for now. --Nezek (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

10. Here's the relevant excerpt from the source:

The army has recently held deliberations regarding the legality of striking homes used as weapons storages when sufficient warning is given to the residents. It has been decided that this falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate.

And here's the corresponding part in the wiki.

According to the Israeli army, striking homes used as weapons storages, when sufficient warning is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is legitimate.^[1]       (Looks fine to me.)

Here's your version:

According to the Israeli army, striking homes used as weapons storages, when sufficient warning is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is legitimate, in the case when weapons are present in the building.^[1]

Perhaps you didn't notice the phrase "striking homes used as weapons storages,"?

11. The quote you gave isn't in this wiki. Perhaps you are confusing this wiki with the other wiki on the Israel-Gaza Conflict?

12. Here's what you propose to add:

IDF commanders have been known to call off attack when they know residents refuse to leave the building.

Here's what's already in the wiki:

Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof.^[2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof. This was meant to frighten the people gathered on the roof into leaving the building.^[3]

So you see, what you are trying to add is already in the wiki.

13. It looks like we agree to leave this item as is.

Are we agreed that the present wiki is acceptable with respect to the items we just discussed? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed your other message above this one and I responded to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

10. OK, I didn't notice the phrase "striking homes used as weapons storages,".

11. It is there, look again. the link I gave for it shows I changed the quoted text into something else.

12. Did you not understand my comment about it? I said I know its already in the article, the problem is its in two different paragraphs. this:

Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof.[2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof.

doesn't direcly reference this:

According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare[8] and there have been hundreds of phone calls to families, warning that their house is about to be blown up, but only 37 have been destroyed.

It's good WP:NPOV and important to have that fact in both paragraphs, as they're both talking about cancelled attacks. --Nezek (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I copied the relevant parts of the two versions for reference:

However, Hamas asked civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings to dissuade Israeli pilots from attacking.^[3] Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof.^[2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof. This was meant to frighten the people gathered on the roof into leaving the building.^[3]

According to the Israeli army, striking homes used as weapons storages, when sufficient warning is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is legitimate, in the case where weapons are present in the building.^[1] According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare^[4] and there have been hundreds of warning calls, but only 37 have been destroyed.^[5] IDF commanders have been known to call off attack when they know residents refuse to leave the building.^[3]

However, Hamas asked civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings to dissuade Israeli pilots from attacking.^[3] Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof.^[2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof. This was meant to frighten the people gathered on the roof into leaving the building.^[3]

According to the Israeli army, striking homes used as weapons storages, when sufficient warning is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is legitimate.^[1] According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare^[4] and there have been hundreds of phone calls to families, warning that their house is about to be blown up, but only 37 have been destroyed.^[5]

11. First, my apologies for forgetting what was in the wiki. I would suggest adding "to houses" to your phrase, i.e., "there have been hundreds of warning calls to houses, but only 37 have been destroyed."

12. I think I understand your point now. Your point is that the houses that were called and not bombed was because the residents stood on their roofs and caused the Israelis to call off the attack. So the calls without a subsequent bombing occurred due to the residents' actions. If the residents weren't on the roofs, there wouldn't have been so many calls without bombing. Thus, it wasn't psychological warfare by the Israelis but just the response of the Israelis to the residents on the roofs. Was this your point?

That's a possible theory, but it could just as well been that it was psychological warfare, rather than hundreds of roofs with residents on them. Another scenario is that there may have been people on some roofs which deterred the Israeli pilots, let's say for example 50. But the other couple of hundred calls without bombing may have been for the purposes of psychological warfare. Unfortunately, we don't have any sources that discuss any of these possibilities.

Without adding that sentence, we have a balance between one sentence for the Israeli Army's claim of legitimacy for the bombings with warnings, and one sentence for the Palestinian Centre's claim of psychological warfare. The addition of a sentence there for the implicit speculation of hundreds of roofs being occupied by residents, when the info about calling off bombing is already in another part of the wiki, would upset the balance and violate WP:NPOV. However, if a source was found that showed that those hundreds of calls without bombings was because of people on the roofs, then a statement should be added there. But it's unlikely that hundreds of roofs had people on them when nothing like that has appeared in any source, as far as I know. Thus, that sentence shouldn't be added.

To sum up, the only change I would agree to of the ones we discussed, is the one in item 11 with the slight modification of houses.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not ment to implicit speculation. It's ment to bring that possiblity to the attention of the reader. I never said I'm sure thats the case, and I didn't construct the sentence in a way that implies that is what happened, just that they've "been known" to do so. That is what a NPOV is about, Displaying all the facts side by side, and letting the readers form their own opinion. Since we don't have any sources to verify or deny this, that is where the article should stand. --Nezek (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the main point of your last message, "No, it's not ment to implicit speculation. It's ment to bring that possiblity to the attention of the reader." - That's the problem with what you're suggesting. You're trying to bring something to the reader that may be a false implication. Also, you're going out of your way to do it since you are trying to repeat info that is already in the wiki elsewhere, as I mentioned in a previous message. What you are suggesting would be bad writing and a violation of WP:NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, the article states "although footage has shown following attacks to sometimes occur sometimes just over 1 minute after the initial knock." and has two citations.

The first leads to an article which describes an attack with a 15 minute delay, and links to a video that has the majority of the delay edited out of it (this is explicitly referenced in the article). The second leads to a document that describes delays of as little as 5 minutes. I see no cited evidence to support the claim that the delay is as little as one minute. I have seen that claim in other places, but none that would qualify as a reliable source.

However, given the contentious nature of the subject, I didn't want to make an edit without giving someone else the opportunity to replace the citations. gnfnrf (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to do this right. Please read the article for citation 8, don't just watch the video. The video is cut for time, the actual delay was 15 minutes, according to the article. (If you care, look at the gap between the buildings at 1:15 in the video; smoke suddenly vanishes, indicating a cut). Citation 12 doesn't support a one minute claim, it says five minutes. Please, lets talk about how to accurately reflect what reliable sources say about this practice in the article. Or alternately, find different reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aaronshavit: Regarding your two edits, this and this.

In both cases you have done something legitimate, like moving stuff around and adding information, and combined it with deleting sourced information, while not mentioning the fact in your edit summary. This is completely unacceptable. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTADVOCATE.

I am restoring the stuff you deleted on principle, though I think both of them should be deleted, or at least modified hugely. Kingsindian (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The first line states: "Roof knocking is the practice of warning inhabitants of a building before it is bombed to give the inhabitants time to flee the attack."

The source quoted is Haaretz. Here is the full quote.

The IDF has also used what they are calling "roof knocking" operations, in which they inform the residents of suspected buildings that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. In these cases, Channel 10 reported Thursday, the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd.

It seems to me the "roof knocking" is referring to the last sentence, namely the firing of a "relatively harmless missile". It does not refer to warnings in general. Elsewhere, this is always the definition which is used, and it is not to be confused with other warnings.

Examples: here, here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lakryum and Shrike:, roof knocking refers to the targeting of civilian homes in Gaza on the basis that they are the family homes of "Hamas members" (according to statements by the Israeli military). Doesn't matter whether the house stored munitions or not, or whether the alleged Hamas member was in the house or not at the time of bombing, or whether he was actually a militant or not (there are cases where elected politicians were targeted). The building is targeted simply for being owned by a Hamas member, hence why Israel is being generous here to give warnings. Had the house been used for any military purpose, the building or the perhaps the neighborhood would be obliterated in no time, and the people would certainly not be given any warnings. Why? because "weapons" and "human shields".

To summarize: there are 2 separate types of civilian home destruction: (1) those destroyed because of alleged military usage, in this case no warnings are given, and (2) because they are simply the homes of Hamas members, in this case a warning is given and the practice is known as roof knocking.

Conflating the 2 types is disingenuous. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please bring relevant quotes I didn't find anything in the sources that says about throwing bombs to warn people about more larger strike.--Shrike (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WTH are you saying? Did you even understand what I wrote? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The source says suspected.We should follow the source not WP:OR.Why did you restored sources that doesn't mention topic of the article.--Shrike (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shrike: The majority of sources agree that 'roof knocking' applies to civilians homes. If there are sources that claim that those civilian homes are "suspect", then you add that comment with appropriate attribution to Israeli officials, but you do NOT remove the fact that they are civilians homes. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Haaretz source says that in direct voice and we should it too without any qualifications .Its unacceptable that you remove sourced information that have direct linking to the article.--Shrike (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shrike: The claim for "civilian homes" is cited by multiple sources, not just Haaretz. The consensus is that "roof knocking" applies to civilian homes of Hamas members, these are even the words of the IDF thugs. Now, if Israel wants to claim that they carry weapons and what not, that doesn't magically turn them into uncivilian structures. Also, "suspected IDF buildings" is an awful violation of WP:POV. My proposal is to maintain the "civilian homes" wording, but add a new sentence at the end where you put the IDF claims.Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I added the change myself ("to target the homes of police officers or Hamas political or military leaders"). Let me know if you disagree. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shrike:, Here are quotes from sources you are removing:

BBC

"Netanyahu said Israel had warned people to get out. Some had taken the advice; others had been prevented from leaving by Hamas...I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields."

The Guardian

"Israel also claimed that Hamas had forced civilians to remain in the Gaza City neighbourhood of Shujai'iya after the IDF warned them to evacuate ahead of its assault on Sunday. Civilians were being "held as hostages", said Peter Lerner, an IDF military spokesman.

These claims have not been backed up by independent reporting from international journalists covering the war from Gaza. Instead, dispatches from the ground have presented complex reasons why some residents did not evacuate from Shujai'iya and other areas targeted by the IDF. Many said nowhere in Gaza was safe, so they saw little point in abandoning their homes."

While they don't mention "roof knocking" explicitly, it is clear that "warnings" here encompasses everything from dropped leaflets, phone calls, radio broadcasts and "roof knocking".

Also worth noting that the MEMRI source makes no mention of roof knocking. Should be removed if you really want to be consistent. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

After "israeli attacks" in the Amnesty's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir Segev Sarusi (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Besides dropping non-explosive or low-yield devices on the roofs, IDF also calls the occupants of the house and warns them of an imminent attack (as mentioned here, here, here and here).

Maybe we should include this detail at the beginning of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:6500:a045:4fde:30f1:6545:6bf:3316 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"knocks on the roof" => "knock on the roof" (incorrect translation) DanBareket (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)